I frankly believe that euthanasia should be allowed. That is, passive euthanasia of course. I think that active euthanasia is being very cruel as u r really taking steps towards killing that person, compared to passive euthanasia, where u r letting an already dying person die a quick, but natural death.
I think that passive euthanasia should be legalised as I think that it will help relieve the family's burden of the constant need to take care of their loved one.
I agree with what viha and vera has mentioned above. However, it should only be legalised if the person suffering from a certain terminal disease, agrees or actually wants it. Since that patient is going to die, and wishes to end his/her misery. Why not allow euthanasia? I believe that ending a willing patient's life is better than letting their families continue to watch them in agony. In addition, euthanasia could ease the burden of paying medical bills, taking care of the patient. Therefore, i agree that euthanasia should be allowed.
I think that euthanasia should be legalised if the patient and his/her family had given their consent. Since the patient is suffering from an incurable disease and the medication given is only capable of prolonging his/her days of sufferings, why not just let him/her go instead of torturing him/her? If not, each day of living would just be another day of agony for the patient. If euthanasia is not allowed to be carried out, it would be very cruel for the patient and his/her family.
For the patient, seeing his/her loved ones making the time to visit him/her daily will be a mental torture. He/She will feel that he/she is adding on to the family’s burden and stress. The patient would think that the money used for paying the medical fees could be put into better uses, for example, for the education of their future generations etc. They would feel guilty for making the family work so hard to pay off their medical fees and how would that help them? Another day of living is another day of suffering, torture and guiltiness towards their family.
For the family members, seeing the patient’s condition worsening day by day and suffering more and more each day would be depressing. It ache their heart to know that they could not do anything to help. Euthanasia can relieve the pain on both sides, physically and mentally.
however, how do we know that passive euthanasia is a less painful way of dying than from all the diseases afflicting the person. perhaps the pain of dying when one is not naturally due to, is a really painful process, much more painful but which cannot be expressed by the victim.
perhaps in euthanasia we are acting without knowing all the facts. there have been cases when people who were believed to be terminally ill had recovered.
in my opinion, the medical profession is dedicated to prolong life - they cannot hasten death.
I disagree strongly about euthanasia being legalised.
Yes, the patients need not suffer anymore from their illness but is it fair to the patients? They too have a fair chance of living their life even though they are suffering in pain.
I think that it is fair to the patient if euthanasia is legalised. If he/she had given his/her consent and decides to end his/her life that way, he/she should be allowed to.
Instead, if euthanasia is not legalised, it would be unfair to the patient. He/She has the right to decide whether he/she wants to live with the pain and sufferings or to die. It would be unfair for them to continue to suffer in pain just because euthanasia is not legalised.
Even if the decision is made by the family members, I believe that it is the best solution they could think of. The patient's family member would be clear of his/her preference after spending years together. Of course, the best would be that both the patient and the family members agreed to it before they allow euthanasia.
This question has sparked a lot of controversies in the recent years because it's a matter of life and death. In my opinion, euthanasia should be legalised. I mean think about it, what is the distinctive difference between active and passive euthanasia? It all ends up in killing the patient either in a long or a short period of time. Like what Zixin has said, why prolong the sufferings of the patient when he/she has endured it for such a long time? Isn't it unfair for them too? By letting him/her go, it also helps the family members to carry on with life, knowing that nothing much could have been done to help the patient.
However, isn't taking one's life murder? I feel that there's really no clear distinction between what is the moral and humane thing to do in this situation. I agree with Stella that everyone has only one life and is it fair to the patient to let them die just because he/she suffers from a terminal illness?
In conclusion, I feel that euthanasia should be legalised and practiced only on a case to case basis.
a life is taken away in euthanasia. how is this a means to save lives?
i think euthanasia gives too much power to the doctors. what gives them the right to decide how a person's life should end. when a patient's life is taken away, aren't the doctors exhibiting their disregard for the patient's right to life? freedoms of individuals should be respected and unhindered and it cannot infringe on another's rights.
I agree with what stella said about patients having their rights to live. And also agree with what shirley mentioned that euthanasia is counted as murder.
HOWEVER, i suggest that euthanasia should only be an option for the patient. It is true that every human should have their rights to live. But if that patient actually requests to die through euthanasia to end the suffering of both him/herself and his/her family, euthanasia should be legalised. Medication only prolongs the person's living period but lengthens the period of being ill as the illness is terminal.
I agree with what zixin has mentioned about euthanasia be allowed, best when both parties, the patient and family allows, and asks for it.
I believe that euthanasia should only be partially legalised.
It should only be carried out if the patient(if conscious) and the direct family members agree to it.
However, I do not believe that a person who's suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition life should just end like that. As long as they're still alive, I believe that nothing is impossible, they may even miraculously recover. Therefore I feel that in such cases euthanasia should not be up to anyone to decide unless the patient and family members feel strongly on that.
I think that if it is a brain dead condition, euthanasia should then be legalised and encouraged.
There has been certain miraculous occasions that a person that has been in a coma for years could regain conciousness all of a sudden.
I do not think euthanasia should be legalised for these kind of patients. Every human have their rights to live, and like what I've mentioned above, patients who has been in a coma could awaken all of a sudden. Even if their families are requesting for euthanasia for the unconcious patient, i think it is unfair to allow others to decide his or her fate while he/she is "away".
However, i think otherwise and stick to my stand on euthanasia for patients suffering from terminal diseases
there is no way of knowing when a comatose patient would regain from consciousness.
therefore, how can you know whether euthanasia should be legalised on him/her?
i think 'terminal' is a relative term. some might define 'terminal' as someone who is bed-ridden and has no glimmer of hope to live, and thus euthanasia should be legalised on her.
then what about full-blown AIDS patients who have six months to live but they are well enough to walk around? they are terminal patients too.
should we then legalise euthanasia on them?
moreover, at which stage of a patient's terminal disease period should a doctor gives the euthanasia? or to put it bluntly, how does a doctor know when the patient shoud die?
I must admit, I am a bit torn on the issue, and as much as I want to sympatise with the patient, my heart really goes out for the doctors.
Anyways, before going into anything proper, passive euthanasia basically means a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). It means that you leave an instrustion with your physician beforehand saying that if you go into cardiac arrest or something, you just want to die and that they shouldn't save you. Active Euthanasia on the other hand involves doctors actually taking steps to end the patients' lives. This includes ending the lives of a coma patient.
Euthanasia, of any kind, is a clear contradiction to the Hypocratic Oath. Doctors become doctors because they want to save lives(or have a comfty job). Either way, their role in society is set. They are meant to be healers and now, on top of that, they are also to be executioners. It's very hard to be professional when you actually have to kill someone for your job. As it is, asking the doctors to perform this 'mercy killing' is torture enough, but to legalise it and make them obligated to kill by law? I think that is just cruel.
I do not think that doctors or anyone unrelated to the patient should be given the right to end a patient's life. No one has the right to decide the fate of another's life especially those who do not even know them. They would not know what the patient truly wants. However, the patient and his/her family members should be allowed to decide whether they want euthanasia or not. I believe that if they had decided to end their life, it is the best solution they can think of. They would be prepared for death and have no regrets.
I agree with Messiah and Amanda in that the euthanasia should only be carried out only when the patient is conscious (except brain dead patients). The purpose of euthanasia is to end a person's pain and suffering. If the person is unconscious such as in a coma, he/she would not be feel the pain or anything. Furthermore, the person has the right to decide whether he or she wants to live on.
Though there are some cases where miracles happen and the incurable disease can be cured all of a sudden, these are rare. Most patients will suffer to death before a cure is found. Therefore, euthanasia should be legalised if both the patient and his/her family members agrees to it.
I think that legalising euthanasia is just adding an extra tool in the arsenal of the doctor. Like Cheryl said, passive euthanasia is just DNR. So, if the patient himself wants to die in the scenario of cardiac arrest or so on, then it is a rational decision made by the patient himself. If we don't legalise it just because "it is not right" then we are prolonging not just the pain and suffering of the patient, but the emotional trauma of the family members too. By legalising Euthanasia,(passive euthanasia at that) we are also striving for better allocation of resources. Because, we can use our medical resources on patients who are more in need of them and whom the doctors have a chance in reviving and saving. As said earlier, a doctor's job is to save people's lives. therefore, we should give them the right resources to do that, instead of trying to "protect" someone who has already made his own decision to die and whom even if we try to revive may not survive for long. We can agree that active euthanasia=murder, but we can't say the same of passive euthanasia.
So, from an economical viewpoint, as well as an emotional one, we should definitely legalise passive euthanasia.
Well passive euthanasia is already legal in most parts of the world, including Singapore (Advance Medical Directive Act), and it has come to the consensus that it is medically alright to let a patient who cannot survive without the use medical equipment pass away.
How about a terminal patient, who can live for maybe 6 months more, wriggling in pain, tormented, tortured because he has been stripped of all his dignity and cannot even clean his own butt after he's gone? If he were the one to ask to be put to death, is it alright?
Just because a terinally ill patient gives permission to another person to kill him, doesn't mean the doctor should comply to his wishes, because we are inevitably placing the burden on the doctor to kill someone who he knows has another 6-7 months good to live. To make it compulsory by law that a doctor should kill a patient, I think that is just not fair.
euthanasia should be legalized to an extent. It should be carried out from a case to case basis. no human should have the right to decide the death of another human.
like some of my classmates have said, only if consent is given from a patient who is suffering from terminal diseases or some incurable, excruciating illness should euthanasia be allowed.
However, i disagree with the idea that euthanasia should be done on unconscious people. Yes, constantly visiting an unconscious loved one could take a toll on some people but even though every member of the family consents to the idea of euthanasia on the patient, there is no consent from the patient himself.
I do not believe that a life should be taken just because some people cannot bear the emotional baggage. The patient could be screaming in his subconscious mind for people to hear him let him carry on living!
On top of that, if the patient's family loses hope that the patient may one day gain consciousness and are just prepared to give up a loved one forever, that is just sad.
I do not believe that euthanasia should be legalized.
No human should be given the right, or power to end a fellow being’s life just because of “economic costs” or “emotional baggage”, let alone doctors who are supposed to be dedicated to life and its healing, not ending it for whatever reasons. That is a terribly self-centered way of thinking – to end someone’s life just because you cannot bear the emotional pain anymore. Since when is the value of life to be judge by dollars, or the number of trips one has to make to a hospital to visit a family member? If so, are we to end the lives of all invalids, because they aren’t contributing much to the economy, and could possibly be adding costs to the economy, and his or her family?
Who should be given the right to determine the value of a life? Doctors? Parents? Spouses? Even the government?
There have also been many cases where doctors have given up hope on a patient but only to have them awaking from their coma after some time. Doctors are not gods, they are bound to make mistakes and wrong estimations, and we shouldn’t be ending a life just because one has insisted “This patient will never wake up.” As Jolene has said earlier, it will be very sad if the family members have given up hope as well and agreed to end the patient’s life – how different is it from a mother murdering her own child, or a husband his wife? People may argue, saying that it is a form of release, based on the understandable need to ‘let go and move on’ but the essence is the same. You are taking someone’s life away, without his or her consent. The blood of his or her life is forever on your hands (and the doctor’s hands). Watching your relative lie in a coma may be emotionally draining, I will not deny that. But it doesn’t mean that ending his or her life may be any less.
As for allowing euthanasia for patients who have given his or her consent, I must ask whether it is any different from suicide. It is essentially taking YOUR OWN LIFE as well, except that this time, you’re throwing yourself off the building from your hospital bed. We must also question whether the patient is in a proper, healthy mental state in order to be making such decisions. We cannot discount the possibility that they may have a death wish because of what they have gone through emotionally and perhaps physically. If so, do we let our own family member kill him or herself because he or she is depressed and can’t take it anymore?
There is a right to life mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but there is certainly no right to death.
In an idealistic world we can ALL try to grasp onto the moral high ground and scream that "IT JUST AIN'T RIGHT!!!". However, in the real world, we can't depand on such things. there is no way mankind can survive if we are just going to say "this is right" and "that is wrong". Economically, emotionally, realistically,euthanasia is just the best thing possible. I understand what some of my classmates say when they say that "it just ain't right" and yes, i agree and sympathise.
I also agree that every possible avenue that could be used to save the live of the person, should be fully utilised before even remotely thinking of euthanasia. Only and ONLY if all other avenues to save the patient's live has been looked into, and after multiple consultations and tests and looking at all probabilities, ALL consulting doctors are EXTREMELY sure that this patient is going to die anyway, then this alternative MAY be an option. Like i said in my earlier post, this is just an extra tool in the doctor's arsenal. We are not saying that it is compulsory for doctor's to go around and kill all their patients. This is just giving the doctor an option. In the remote possibility, that a particular patient wants to do it, the doctor should follow the wishes of his patients and not be thrown into jail for it.
As Cheryl said earlier, most countries around the world have already legalised it, including Singapore(AMD)! So, if so many governments have legalised it, then there MUST be a glimmer of truth in the reasoning for Euthanasia right? No government would blindly legislate something w/o knowing the pros and cons!
Therefore, allowing this legislation to be there as an option for doctors, not to use it carelessly, but just to be there,i think passive euthanasia should be legalised.
I think that passive euthanasia in this case should be only allowed unless the patient's( if he is still sane) and the family consent is given. Well, in certain cases, I agree with the comments mentioned that in rare cases, does the patient actually wake up from a comatose, but this happens rarely. However, i strongly feel that this should only be the last resort, because some families would want to look into other means of treatments to see if there is a glimmer of hope to save their loved ones.
As quoted by Viha earlier, “However, in the real world, we can't depend on such things. There is no way mankind can survive if we are just going to say "this is right" and "that is wrong".
I disagree. Are we then to call for a world that is not governed by law and justice, simply because we have better things to do? Should we go ahead and legalise murder, since court trials are a waste of time and is an economical cost? This isn’t just an issue of “what is right and what is wrong”, it is an issue of life and death, and it cannot be judged by economical or emotional benefits. What is the point of the survival of mankind, or the progression of society if we can actually believe that a life should be taken away because of the “economical cost”?
Also, the statement of “So, if so many governments have legalised it, then there MUST be a glimmer of truth in the reasoning for Euthanasia right?” is an appeal to popularity and common practice. Just because many governments have legalised it does not make it morally sound. A government is not made up of higher beings; it consists of men who can make mistakes too, as any human will.
Euthanasia should be the absolute last resort, there is no question about it.
Euthanasia MAY be helpful to the economy but are we going to be mercenaries where money is always The issue in this society?
Emotionally, me and gerlynn have discussed this and we came to a consensus that no ones emotional baggage will lighten after murdering a loved one. For all you know the situation could cause family members to be guilt stricken and blame themselves for giving up hope so easily for the rest of their lives.
If we are going to legalize such murderous measures for the progression of our society war should be allowed so we can rule the world. ha-ha.
To legalise euthanasia or not, is asking ourselves whether or not we are allowed to choose to end our own life. Some might agrue that euthanasia could be more humane and more pragmatic for both the patient and the family. However, to broadly legalise this practise, the terminally ill might feel pressurized to choose this path.
The patients who come from lower income groups might feel the need to take up euthanasia as an end to relieve the family's burden. They might secretly hope for a cure, especially in this era where technology is constantly improving. This choice of euthanasia is a crucial one as there are no turning backs once the decision is put to action.
Many argued that it is morally wrong to legalise euthanasia and to carry it out. The right to live and die should be solely in the hands of God, and the legalisation of euthanasia gives doctors the right to kill.
However, to legalise the usage of euthanasia in a way also allows the terminally ill die with the last diginity. It is more humane to end their lives this way than to reduce to a person who couldn't even recognise their family members after being on mind-dulling medications for long. They could had been healthy people before, and yet now, just zombies. Take for example the Terri Schiavo's case, she had been a cheerful and relatively healthy person. But as she collapsed in 1990, prolong lack of oxygen had already caused her to have brain injury. In 2002, 12 years after she had been pronounced brain dead, her brain shows no activity and instead had most of the brain tissue reduced to liquid. Being in a persistant vegetative condition, euthanasia was being performed on her. Though there had been much controversy over this case, if given the choice with the legalisation of euthanasia, she might have choosen this route to end all her sufferings and pain. And there are reliable oral accounts that she had chosen this path, although the reasons uncleared. Of course, to generalise all kinds of pain and direct euthanasia as a key to freedom from it would not be right. But when the patient is suffering from great physical pain, as well as extreme mental torture, it is definately a kinder way to offer them the choice of euthanasia legally.
Moreover, hospital bills over the years could piled up beyond the family's ability to pay, and legalising euthanasia in this case helps to relieve their burden. In this light, legalising euthanasia is far more pragmatic than any other alternative. It does not only relieves the patient's sufferings, it relieves the family's burden. When hope of survival is so minimum, and its "only a matter of time" when death comes, its quicker and more pragmatic to carry out euthanasia. When the patient could no longer enjoy life, there's no point in holding on, at the expense of their struggling families.
Dr Jack Kevorkian, the person who actively promoted the use of euthanasia believes that as societies mature, we should be given more choices in life, including the choice of death. In today's society, freedom of choice is given to us in almost all circumstances, and he believes that it should include the choice to die. Morbid, but we should overcome our fears of death. Especially when most countries function on democracy, we choose the country's leaders which affect the whole nation, but yet we cannot make a choice on what affect our lives? Euthanasia, indirectly appeals to this principle of democracy.
In a world where hospital spaces are limited and professional care are relatively little, to save the life of those who could contribute back to the society should be more important than saving the lives of ones who has little chance of returning back to normal life. In a persistant vegetable state, if there is a miracle cure sometime some way, the patient would only gain conscious and not his ability to once again contribute back to the society the way he used to. Moreover much resources are 'wasted' on him when they could be put into use to save many others (those not terminaly ill) who have chance and ability to give back to the society.
However undesireable the ability to take away a person's life just because euthanasia is legalised, the pros of it far outweigh the cons of the action, in my opinion. Therefore, mercy killing should be legalised.
I would like to clarify something about the Terri Schiavo Case. Though she was brain damaged, she was not dying and could in fact breathe on her own. Her loved ones, nurses and other medical experts have also testified that she was aware when people entered the room, and could recognise loved ones and even attempted to speak to them.
And also, she did not die a painless death as some have believed - in actual fact, her feeding tube was removed by. She was virtually made to die by starvation.
I would also like to point out that Terri Schiavo became very agitated and even cried out when her feeding tube was about to be removed, contrary to the belief that she chose to die such a death.
Money had ALWAYS been the issue in today's world. This is undebatable. Without money, you have nothing. In this context, when the patient's family reach the point where they no longer could afford the bills, would society be so kind to them to fund the bills? If u can do so for one family, wil you have the ability to do so for the next? And the next after? To reach the point where the family is suffering due to the lack of funds, the patient, IF he is mentally sound enough to feel this, would had the wish to end his life to relieve their sufferings, and also the recognition of the fact that he could never get well enough to contribute to the society as much as before.
I agree with Viha on her point that mankind CANNOT survive by "what is right n wrong" principle solely. There are far too many grey areas around that right and wrong are no longer what it is. Depending on context and situations, right and wrong could be interchangeable. IF we keep on believing that it is wrong to use euthanasia, will there be a time when you see a hospital full of patients on life support clinging on to their lives even though they are clearly unable to give back to the society even IF they get well? And whether they get well or not is another unknown. If a day like this would come due to the lack of the personal choice to die, there would be others who might die as a result of the lack in hospitalisation care, and these people are those who are mildly ill and would contribute back to the society after they are well. Flu could kill, but treated early they are harmless and the ill will recover and go back to work just like before, in contrast to a patient that is brain dead for 10 years.
Emotional baggage could be lighten depending on the way you look at it. If the family members made this decision, they no doubt will feel sad and depress at that moment. But if they had looked at it the way that they had finally relieved their precious son/daughter/sister/brother's pain and sufferings over the years, they would feel so much better. The culture, religion they are in would also provide a form of console and support for them, and of course this would depend on their religion's stand on euthanasia. ^^
Terri Schiavo had severely damaged brain and she could no longer perform the usual human activities even if she is able to get well. She attempts to speak, but could she? She had been on life support for 15 yrs before they strave her, and how much resources are used on her for the 15 years? How much could be used to save the others if those are not used to save her, a person who had severe brain damage so much that much of her brain tissue are nothing but liquid? The way to die for her case might be wrong, but the use of euthanasia is, IMO, the right choice.
I would like to add something to my previous post. Terri Schiavo did not choose to have her feeding tube removed, but rather, her husband had gone to a court for this order to be imposed, despite very strong objections from her family and friends
She may not have been able to speak, but her attempt to try does show her desire to live. And if someone wants to live, just because he or she cannot function as a normal human being, he or she should be given that right, instead of having one's feeding tube removed and forced to die by slow starvation.
Perhaps, it is true that other resources may have been used for other patients instead of Terri Schiavo, but the ends never justify the means. Nothing can cloud the fact that killing off a person to save others is still essentially murder.
A life, though only ONE life, is still a life and of value.
In reply to Gerlynn's post, everything that she has said so far is morally right and i totally agree. It is just plain morals and values that murdering someone is wrong and i TOTALLY agree. However, practically, leaving someone who has been brain dead for the last 15 years to continue living is quite inhumane by itself. What kind of life would you call lying on a bed, unable to move, unable to speak, unable to eat normally, unable to go to the toilet, unable to literally do ANYTHING except to just lie there? Don't u find that morally unsound as well? making someone suffer in silent pain, unable to even voice out the torure and unable to console fellow family members who are going through the emotional torment? In my opinion, if i was in that situation, i honestly rather die. I know everyone wouldn't think the same way, but at least i have that option, for those who do want it.
I think the line between active and passive euthanasia has been blurred at this point, so let me clarify the distinction again.
What Viha is talking about is PASSIVE euthanasia, whereby you sign this form that says that "if my lung collapses and I cannot breath, you do not use your machines and bring me to life". This is the form of euthanasia that is constantly being violated by House in House M.D.
Active Euthanasia is probably what Gerlynn and Jolene are talking about. This is where a terminally ill patient who is suffering immense bouts of pain asks to be put to death by their physician.
In Terri Schiavo's case, she did not sign a AMD and had no specifications of what should be done if she ever wound up in a coma. So then, was the state of Florida right to take away her life-support mechanism?
What done to her blurs the line between active and passive euthanasia. Passive, because without the feeding tube, she was unable to sustain herself, thus qualifying her for the definition of passive euthanasia.
However, her case also hovered close to active euthanasia, because her doctor had to take action to end her life to be put out of her comatose state.
Putting aside her parents, who somehow managed to commune with her regardless of her being brain dead, and her husband, who somehow knew she wanted to die, and all that remains is the shell of a person.
The medics held on for 15 years waiting for her to wake up until was she declared not only comatosed, but braindead. In such an instance, we don't even have a person to wait for to wake up, because it's impossble for it to happen anyways.
Yes, her life may have been taken away by the state, but she lost the essence of her being once she was declared braindead. In such a case, perhaps it was wiser to let her go and channel those resources to saving lives who's lives could still be saved, rather than hanging on to the shell of a person which was already determined impossible to awaken again.
Like what Viha says, resources are scarce. Like what we learnt in Econs, everything has an opportunity cost and it was between the shell of a person who would not wake up ever again, or of another patient who may have a shot at life from the resources used to keep Terri alive. That is the opportunity cost.
I believe that passive euthanasia should be allowed. it is not only relieving the family's burden but also liberates the patient from torment. I would like to add that it is only ethical if the patient agrees to it.
The doctor involved in that process is seen as a murderer to some but in other's opinion, such as mine, i would see them as liberators.
People accuse patients who agree to the euthansia for commiting suicide. But i call the accusers tormentors. The dying patient is suffering from a interminable diesease that spells eminent death, they are suffering and clinging on to their miserable lifes in agony, why can't they choose to end their lives with swift and subtle means?
If related parties agree, then euthansia can be allowed
i seriously agree tat euthanasia shld be legalised. Why waste the time and money tryin to cure a INCURABLE disease? like Aids. Ya i know it is true they can live longer wif all the regular screenins and medications given, but afterall he/she will die, and all the sufferings accumulated could be worst than death.
Cant we jus end his/her misery in such painless manner? Provided he/she or related parties had given their consent.
Passive euthanasia basically means a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). It means that you leave an instrustion with your physician beforehand saying that if you go into cardiac arrest or something, you just want to die and that they shouldn't save you. Active Euthanasia on the other hand involves doctors actually taking steps to end the patients' lives.
PLS REMEMBER that this is the difference between passive and active euthanasia. We have sidetracked without realising the true difference between the two. I think we have come to a consensus that active euthanasia is cruel. But...... passive euthanasia on the other hand is the debatable issue here and i say that it's ok. Passive Euthanasia is, like i've mentioned in my earlier posts, a freedom of choice. It is the individual right of the patient to choose if they want to sign a "DNR form". however, they shouldn't be thrown into jail for wanting to not go through alot of pain. IT IS THEIR OWN CHOICE.
I think that allowing euthanasia on the patient just because he/she is a burden to the family, a burden to the society, a wastage of medical resources is not right.
I believe that euthanasia should only be legalised if the patient and family members agreed to it because they want to relieve the pain and sufferings of the patient. Therefore, there should be stricter terms and conditions for the legal use of euthanasia.
I feel that if euthanasia is allowed, it should allow the patient to die in the shortest time possible to reduce the torture. If it takes place over a few days, it would be more cruel for the person.
I just disagree with allowing passive euthanasia or active euthanasia.
Active euthanasia is inhumane and take aways the freedom of choice from the patients. The patients are not being treated fairly like how they should be.
But passive euthanasia should not be legalised because it is unfair to the family members. Yes, the patients are of a burden to the family but why not bravely face death in the face and die when their time is up rather than giving up a slim chance of survival.
I disagree about what Stella had said about "passive euthanasia should not be legalised because it is unfair to the family members. Yes, the patients are of a burden to the family but why not bravely face death in the face and die when their time is up rather than giving up a slim chance of survival".
I think that passive euthanasia is perfectly fair for both the patient and the family members if they are the ones who gave their consent. I do not think that by accepting euthanasia, the patient is not facing death bravely. They are just going for the option of dying earlier so that the patient can end his/her sufferings.
Regarding the point about giving up a slim chance of survival, it really depends on how slim the chance is. Therefore, euthanasia should be looked into on a case to case basis. If the chance of survival is under a certain percentage, then could euthanasia be allowed.
Besides, if the patient agreed beforehand, I believe we should respect their decision- who else feel the suffering more then themselves?
Yes, passive euthanasia should be legalised because the patient does have a right over his own life. However i feel that passive euthanasia should only be used on patients who, as jenn said, have agreed beforehand.
this will help relief the patient's pain and possible burden on the family.
Passive Euthanasia is already a norm, as proved by the AMD of S'pore. One of the roles of law is to reflect the mood of society, so since passive euthanasia is already a norm, why not take it in its natural step and legalise it?
Active euthanasia, on the other hand, is a more debatable issue, kind of out of the scope of this debate,but my two cents is that it shouldn't be legalised because allowing another person to have the right to bring upon death to a patient is wrong in principle and a model that allows one to do so is too easily open to abuse.
43 comments:
I frankly believe that euthanasia should be allowed. That is, passive euthanasia of course. I think that active euthanasia is being very cruel as u r really taking steps towards killing that person, compared to passive euthanasia, where u r letting an already dying person die a quick, but natural death.
I think that passive euthanasia should be legalised as I think that it will help relieve the family's burden of the constant need to take care of their loved one.
I agree with what viha and vera has mentioned above. However, it should only be legalised if the person suffering from a certain terminal disease, agrees or actually wants it. Since that patient is going to die, and wishes to end his/her misery. Why not allow euthanasia? I believe that ending a willing patient's life is better than letting their families continue to watch them in agony. In addition, euthanasia could ease the burden of paying medical bills, taking care of the patient.
Therefore, i agree that euthanasia should be allowed.
I think that euthanasia should be legalised if the patient and his/her family had given their consent. Since the patient is suffering from an incurable disease and the medication given is only capable of prolonging his/her days of sufferings, why not just let him/her go instead of torturing him/her? If not, each day of living would just be another day of agony for the patient. If euthanasia is not allowed to be carried out, it would be very cruel for the patient and his/her family.
For the patient, seeing his/her loved ones making the time to visit him/her daily will be a mental torture. He/She will feel that he/she is adding on to the family’s burden and stress. The patient would think that the money used for paying the medical fees could be put into better uses, for example, for the education of their future generations etc. They would feel guilty for making the family work so hard to pay off their medical fees and how would that help them? Another day of living is another day of suffering, torture and guiltiness towards their family.
For the family members, seeing the patient’s condition worsening day by day and suffering more and more each day would be depressing. It ache their heart to know that they could not do anything to help. Euthanasia can relieve the pain on both sides, physically and mentally.
active euthanasia is cruel, i agree.
however, how do we know that passive euthanasia is a less painful way of dying than from all the diseases afflicting the person. perhaps the pain of dying when one is not naturally due to, is a really painful process, much more painful but which cannot be expressed by the victim.
perhaps in euthanasia we are acting without knowing all the facts. there have been cases when people who were believed to be terminally ill had recovered.
in my opinion, the medical profession is dedicated to prolong life - they cannot hasten death.
I disagree strongly about euthanasia being legalised.
Yes, the patients need not suffer anymore from their illness but is it fair to the patients? They too have a fair chance of living their life even though they are suffering in pain.
I think that it is fair to the patient if euthanasia is legalised. If he/she had given his/her consent and decides to end his/her life that way, he/she should be allowed to.
Instead, if euthanasia is not legalised, it would be unfair to the patient. He/She has the right to decide whether he/she wants to live with the pain and sufferings or to die. It would be unfair for them to continue to suffer in pain just because euthanasia is not legalised.
Even if the decision is made by the family members, I believe that it is the best solution they could think of. The patient's family member would be clear of his/her preference after spending years together. Of course, the best would be that both the patient and the family members agreed to it before they allow euthanasia.
This question has sparked a lot of controversies in the recent years because it's a matter of life and death. In my opinion, euthanasia should be legalised. I mean think about it, what is the distinctive difference between active and passive euthanasia? It all ends up in killing the patient either in a long or a short period of time. Like what Zixin has said, why prolong the sufferings of the patient when he/she has endured it for such a long time? Isn't it unfair for them too? By letting him/her go, it also helps the family members to carry on with life, knowing that nothing much could have been done to help the patient.
However, isn't taking one's life murder? I feel that there's really no clear distinction between what is the moral and humane thing to do in this situation. I agree with Stella that everyone has only one life and is it fair to the patient to let them die just because he/she suffers from a terminal illness?
In conclusion, I feel that euthanasia should be legalised and practiced only on a case to case basis.
a life is taken away in euthanasia.
how is this a means to
save lives?
i think euthanasia gives too much power to the doctors. what gives them the right to decide how a person's life should end. when a patient's life is taken away, aren't the doctors exhibiting their disregard for the patient's right to life? freedoms of individuals should be respected and unhindered and it cannot infringe on another's rights.
I agree with what stella said about patients having their rights to live. And also agree with what shirley mentioned that euthanasia is counted as murder.
HOWEVER, i suggest that euthanasia should only be an option for the patient. It is true that every human should have their rights to live. But if that patient actually requests to die through euthanasia to end the suffering of both him/herself and his/her family, euthanasia should be legalised. Medication only prolongs the person's living period but lengthens the period of being ill as the illness is terminal.
I agree with what zixin has mentioned about euthanasia be allowed, best when both parties, the patient and family allows, and asks for it.
I believe that euthanasia should only be partially legalised.
It should only be carried out if the patient(if conscious) and the direct family members agree to it.
However, I do not believe that a person who's suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition life should just end like that. As long as they're still alive, I believe that nothing is impossible, they may even miraculously recover. Therefore I feel that in such cases euthanasia should not be up to anyone to decide unless the patient and family members feel strongly on that.
I think that if it is a brain dead condition, euthanasia should then be legalised and encouraged.
There has been certain miraculous occasions that a person that has been in a coma for years could regain conciousness all of a sudden.
I do not think euthanasia should be legalised for these kind of patients. Every human have their rights to live, and like what I've mentioned above, patients who has been in a coma could awaken all of a sudden. Even if their families are requesting for euthanasia for the unconcious patient, i think it is unfair to allow others to decide his or her fate while he/she is "away".
However, i think otherwise and stick to my stand on euthanasia for patients suffering from terminal diseases
there is no way of knowing when a comatose patient would regain from consciousness.
therefore, how can you know whether euthanasia should be legalised on him/her?
i think 'terminal' is a relative term. some might define 'terminal' as someone who is bed-ridden and has no glimmer of hope to live, and thus euthanasia should be legalised on her.
then what about full-blown AIDS patients who have six months to live but they are well enough to walk around? they are terminal patients too.
should we then legalise euthanasia on them?
moreover, at which stage of a patient's terminal disease period should a doctor gives the euthanasia? or to put it bluntly, how does a doctor know when the patient shoud die?
I must admit, I am a bit torn on the issue, and as much as I want to sympatise with the patient, my heart really goes out for the doctors.
Anyways, before going into anything proper, passive euthanasia basically means a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). It means that you leave an instrustion with your physician beforehand saying that if you go into cardiac arrest or something, you just want to die and that they shouldn't save you. Active Euthanasia on the other hand involves doctors actually taking steps to end the patients' lives. This includes ending the lives of a coma patient.
Euthanasia, of any kind, is a clear contradiction to the Hypocratic Oath. Doctors become doctors because they want to save lives(or have a comfty job). Either way, their role in society is set. They are meant to be healers and now, on top of that, they are also to be executioners. It's very hard to be professional when you actually have to kill someone for your job. As it is, asking the doctors to perform this 'mercy killing' is torture enough, but to legalise it and make them obligated to kill by law? I think that is just cruel.
I do not think that doctors or anyone unrelated to the patient should be given the right to end a patient's life. No one has the right to decide the fate of another's life especially those who do not even know them. They would not know what the patient truly wants. However, the patient and his/her family members should be allowed to decide whether they want euthanasia or not. I believe that if they had decided to end their life, it is the best solution they can think of. They would be prepared for death and have no regrets.
I agree with Messiah and Amanda in that the euthanasia should only be carried out only when the patient is conscious (except brain dead patients). The purpose of euthanasia is to end a person's pain and suffering. If the person is unconscious such as in a coma, he/she would not be feel the pain or anything. Furthermore, the person has the right to decide whether he or she wants to live on.
Though there are some cases where miracles happen and the incurable disease can be cured all of a sudden, these are rare. Most patients will suffer to death before a cure is found. Therefore, euthanasia should be legalised if both the patient and his/her family members agrees to it.
I think that legalising euthanasia is just adding an extra tool in the arsenal of the doctor. Like Cheryl said, passive euthanasia is just DNR. So, if the patient himself wants to die in the scenario of cardiac arrest or so on, then it is a rational decision made by the patient himself. If we don't legalise it just because "it is not right" then we are prolonging not just the pain and suffering of the patient, but the emotional trauma of the family members too.
By legalising Euthanasia,(passive euthanasia at that) we are also striving for better allocation of resources. Because, we can use our medical resources on patients who are more in need of them and whom the doctors have a chance in reviving and saving. As said earlier, a doctor's job is to save people's lives. therefore, we should give them the right resources to do that, instead of trying to "protect" someone who has already made his own decision to die and whom even if we try to revive may not survive for long.
We can agree that active euthanasia=murder, but we can't say the same of passive euthanasia.
So, from an economical viewpoint, as well as an emotional one, we should definitely legalise passive euthanasia.
Well passive euthanasia is already legal in most parts of the world, including Singapore (Advance Medical Directive Act), and it has come to the consensus that it is medically alright to let a patient who cannot survive without the use medical equipment pass away.
How about a terminal patient, who can live for maybe 6 months more, wriggling in pain, tormented, tortured because he has been stripped of all his dignity and cannot even clean his own butt after he's gone? If he were the one to ask to be put to death, is it alright?
Just because a terinally ill patient gives permission to another person to kill him, doesn't mean the doctor should comply to his wishes, because we are inevitably placing the burden on the doctor to kill someone who he knows has another 6-7 months good to live. To make it compulsory by law that a doctor should kill a patient, I think that is just not fair.
euthanasia should be legalized to an extent. It should be carried out from a case to case basis. no human should have the right to decide the death of another human.
like some of my classmates have said, only if consent is given from a patient who is suffering from terminal diseases or some incurable, excruciating illness should euthanasia be allowed.
However, i disagree with the idea that euthanasia should be done on unconscious people. Yes, constantly visiting an unconscious loved one could take a toll on some people but even though every member of the family consents to the idea of euthanasia on the patient, there is no consent from the patient himself.
I do not believe that a life should be taken just because some people cannot bear the emotional baggage. The patient could be screaming in his subconscious mind for people to hear him let him carry on living!
On top of that, if the patient's family loses hope that the patient may one day gain consciousness and are just prepared to give up a loved one forever, that is just sad.
I do not believe that euthanasia should be legalized.
No human should be given the right, or power to end a fellow being’s life just because of “economic costs” or “emotional baggage”, let alone doctors who are supposed to be dedicated to life and its healing, not ending it for whatever reasons. That is a terribly self-centered way of thinking – to end someone’s life just because you cannot bear the emotional pain anymore. Since when is the value of life to be judge by dollars, or the number of trips one has to make to a hospital to visit a family member? If so, are we to end the lives of all invalids, because they aren’t contributing much to the economy, and could possibly be adding costs to the economy, and his or her family?
Who should be given the right to determine the value of a life? Doctors? Parents? Spouses? Even the government?
There have also been many cases where doctors have given up hope on a patient but only to have them awaking from their coma after some time. Doctors are not gods, they are bound to make mistakes and wrong estimations, and we shouldn’t be ending a life just because one has insisted “This patient will never wake up.” As Jolene has said earlier, it will be very sad if the family members have given up hope as well and agreed to end the patient’s life – how different is it from a mother murdering her own child, or a husband his wife? People may argue, saying that it is a form of release, based on the understandable need to ‘let go and move on’ but the essence is the same. You are taking someone’s life away, without his or her consent. The blood of his or her life is forever on your hands (and the doctor’s hands). Watching your relative lie in a coma may be emotionally draining, I will not deny that. But it doesn’t mean that ending his or her life may be any less.
As for allowing euthanasia for patients who have given his or her consent, I must ask whether it is any different from suicide. It is essentially taking YOUR OWN LIFE as well, except that this time, you’re throwing yourself off the building from your hospital bed. We must also question whether the patient is in a proper, healthy mental state in order to be making such decisions. We cannot discount the possibility that they may have a death wish because of what they have gone through emotionally and perhaps physically. If so, do we let our own family member kill him or herself because he or she is depressed and can’t take it anymore?
There is a right to life mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but there is certainly no right to death.
In an idealistic world we can ALL try to grasp onto the moral high ground and scream that "IT JUST AIN'T RIGHT!!!". However, in the real world, we can't depand on such things. there is no way mankind can survive if we are just going to say "this is right" and "that is wrong". Economically, emotionally, realistically,euthanasia is just the best thing possible. I understand what some of my classmates say when they say that "it just ain't right" and yes, i agree and sympathise.
I also agree that every possible avenue that could be used to save the live of the person, should be fully utilised before even remotely thinking of euthanasia. Only and ONLY if all other avenues to save the patient's live has been looked into, and after multiple consultations and tests and looking at all probabilities, ALL consulting doctors are EXTREMELY sure that this patient is going to die anyway, then this alternative MAY be an option. Like i said in my earlier post, this is just an extra tool in the doctor's arsenal. We are not saying that it is compulsory for doctor's to go around and kill all their patients. This is just giving the doctor an option. In the remote possibility, that a particular patient wants to do it, the doctor should follow the wishes of his patients and not be thrown into jail for it.
As Cheryl said earlier, most countries around the world have already legalised it, including Singapore(AMD)! So, if so many governments have legalised it, then there MUST be a glimmer of truth in the reasoning for Euthanasia right? No government would blindly legislate something w/o knowing the pros and cons!
Therefore, allowing this legislation to be there as an option for doctors, not to use it carelessly, but just to be there,i think passive euthanasia should be legalised.
I think that passive euthanasia in this case should be only allowed unless the patient's( if he is still sane) and the family consent is given. Well, in certain cases, I agree with the comments mentioned that in rare cases, does the patient actually wake up from a comatose, but this happens rarely.
However, i strongly feel that this should only be the last resort, because some families would want to look into other means of treatments to see if there is a glimmer of hope to save their loved ones.
As quoted by Viha earlier, “However, in the real world, we can't depend on such things. There is no way mankind can survive if we are just going to say "this is right" and "that is wrong".
I disagree. Are we then to call for a world that is not governed by law and justice, simply because we have better things to do? Should we go ahead and legalise murder, since court trials are a waste of time and is an economical cost? This isn’t just an issue of “what is right and what is wrong”, it is an issue of life and death, and it cannot be judged by economical or emotional benefits. What is the point of the survival of mankind, or the progression of society if we can actually believe that a life should be taken away because of the “economical cost”?
Also, the statement of “So, if so many governments have legalised it, then there MUST be a glimmer of truth in the reasoning for Euthanasia right?” is an appeal to popularity and common practice. Just because many governments have legalised it does not make it morally sound. A government is not made up of higher beings; it consists of men who can make mistakes too, as any human will.
Euthanasia should be the absolute last resort, there is no question about it.
Euthanasia MAY be helpful to the economy but are we going to be mercenaries where money is always The issue in this society?
Emotionally, me and gerlynn have discussed this and we came to a consensus that no ones emotional baggage will lighten after murdering a loved one. For all you know the situation could cause family members to be guilt stricken and blame themselves for giving up hope so easily for the rest of their lives.
If we are going to legalize such murderous measures for the progression of our society war should be allowed so we can rule the world. ha-ha.
To legalise euthanasia or not, is asking ourselves whether or not we are allowed to choose to end our own life. Some might agrue that euthanasia could be more humane and more pragmatic for both the patient and the family. However, to broadly legalise this practise, the terminally ill might feel pressurized to choose this path.
The patients who come from lower income groups might feel the need to take up euthanasia as an end to relieve the family's burden. They might secretly hope for a cure, especially in this era where technology is constantly improving. This choice of euthanasia is a crucial one as there are no turning backs once the decision is put to action.
Many argued that it is morally wrong to legalise euthanasia and to carry it out. The right to live and die should be solely in the hands of God, and the legalisation of euthanasia gives doctors the right to kill.
However, to legalise the usage of euthanasia in a way also allows the terminally ill die with the last diginity. It is more humane to end their lives this way than to reduce to a person who couldn't even recognise their family members after being on mind-dulling medications for long. They could had been healthy people before, and yet now, just zombies. Take for example the Terri Schiavo's case, she had been a cheerful and relatively healthy person. But as she collapsed in 1990, prolong lack of oxygen had already caused her to have brain injury. In 2002, 12 years after she had been pronounced brain dead, her brain shows no activity and instead had most of the brain tissue reduced to liquid. Being in a persistant vegetative condition, euthanasia was being performed on her. Though there had been much controversy over this case, if given the choice with the legalisation of euthanasia, she might have choosen this route to end all her sufferings and pain. And there are reliable oral accounts that she had chosen this path, although the reasons uncleared. Of course, to generalise all kinds of pain and direct euthanasia as a key to freedom from it would not be right. But when the patient is suffering from great physical pain, as well as extreme mental torture, it is definately a kinder way to offer them the choice of euthanasia legally.
Moreover, hospital bills over the years could piled up beyond the family's ability to pay, and legalising euthanasia in this case helps to relieve their burden. In this light, legalising euthanasia is far more pragmatic than any other alternative. It does not only relieves the patient's sufferings, it relieves the family's burden. When hope of survival is so minimum, and its "only a matter of time" when death comes, its quicker and more pragmatic to carry out euthanasia. When the patient could no longer enjoy life, there's no point in holding on, at the expense of their struggling families.
Dr Jack Kevorkian, the person who actively promoted the use of euthanasia believes that as societies mature, we should be given more choices in life, including the choice of death. In today's society, freedom of choice is given to us in almost all circumstances, and he believes that it should include the choice to die. Morbid, but we should overcome our fears of death. Especially when most countries function on democracy, we choose the country's leaders which affect the whole nation, but yet we cannot make a choice on what affect our lives? Euthanasia, indirectly appeals to this principle of democracy.
In a world where hospital spaces are limited and professional care are relatively little, to save the life of those who could contribute back to the society should be more important than saving the lives of ones who has little chance of returning back to normal life. In a persistant vegetable state, if there is a miracle cure sometime some way, the patient would only gain conscious and not his ability to once again contribute back to the society the way he used to. Moreover much resources are 'wasted' on him when they could be put into use to save many others (those not terminaly ill) who have chance and ability to give back to the society.
However undesireable the ability to take away a person's life just because euthanasia is legalised, the pros of it far outweigh the cons of the action, in my opinion. Therefore, mercy killing should be legalised.
I would like to clarify something about the Terri Schiavo Case. Though she was brain damaged, she was not dying and could in fact breathe on her own. Her loved ones, nurses and other medical experts have also testified that she was aware when people entered the room, and could recognise loved ones and even attempted to speak to them.
And also, she did not die a painless death as some have believed - in actual fact, her feeding tube was removed by. She was virtually made to die by starvation.
I would also like to point out that Terri Schiavo became very agitated and even cried out when her feeding tube was about to be removed, contrary to the belief that she chose to die such a death.
In regards to some of the posts earlier:
Money had ALWAYS been the issue in today's world. This is undebatable. Without money, you have nothing. In this context, when the patient's family reach the point where they no longer could afford the bills, would society be so kind to them to fund the bills? If u can do so for one family, wil you have the ability to do so for the next? And the next after? To reach the point where the family is suffering due to the lack of funds, the patient, IF he is mentally sound enough to feel this, would had the wish to end his life to relieve their sufferings, and also the recognition of the fact that he could never get well enough to contribute to the society as much as before.
I agree with Viha on her point that mankind CANNOT survive by "what is right n wrong" principle solely. There are far too many grey areas around that right and wrong are no longer what it is. Depending on context and situations, right and wrong could be interchangeable. IF we keep on believing that it is wrong to use euthanasia, will there be a time when you see a hospital full of patients on life support clinging on to their lives even though they are clearly unable to give back to the society even IF they get well? And whether they get well or not is another unknown. If a day like this would come due to the lack of the personal choice to die, there would be others who might die as a result of the lack in hospitalisation care, and these people are those who are mildly ill and would contribute back to the society after they are well. Flu could kill, but treated early they are harmless and the ill will recover and go back to work just like before, in contrast to a patient that is brain dead for 10 years.
Emotional baggage could be lighten depending on the way you look at it. If the family members made this decision, they no doubt will feel sad and depress at that moment. But if they had looked at it the way that they had finally relieved their precious son/daughter/sister/brother's pain and sufferings over the years, they would feel so much better. The culture, religion they are in would also provide a form of console and support for them, and of course this would depend on their religion's stand on euthanasia. ^^
Terri Schiavo had severely damaged brain and she could no longer perform the usual human activities even if she is able to get well. She attempts to speak, but could she? She had been on life support for 15 yrs before they strave her, and how much resources are used on her for the 15 years? How much could be used to save the others if those are not used to save her, a person who had severe brain damage so much that much of her brain tissue are nothing but liquid? The way to die for her case might be wrong, but the use of euthanasia is, IMO, the right choice.
I would like to add something to my previous post. Terri Schiavo did not choose to have her feeding tube removed, but rather, her husband had gone to a court for this order to be imposed, despite very strong objections from her family and friends
She may not have been able to speak, but her attempt to try does show her desire to live. And if someone wants to live, just because he or she cannot function as a normal human being, he or she should be given that right, instead of having one's feeding tube removed and forced to die by slow starvation.
Perhaps, it is true that other resources may have been used for other patients instead of Terri Schiavo, but the ends never justify the means. Nothing can cloud the fact that killing off a person to save others is still essentially murder.
A life, though only ONE life, is still a life and of value.
In reply to Gerlynn's post, everything that she has said so far is morally right and i totally agree. It is just plain morals and values that murdering someone is wrong and i TOTALLY agree.
However, practically, leaving someone who has been brain dead for the last 15 years to continue living is quite inhumane by itself. What kind of life would you call lying on a bed, unable to move, unable to speak, unable to eat normally, unable to go to the toilet, unable to literally do ANYTHING except to just lie there? Don't u find that morally unsound as well? making someone suffer in silent pain, unable to even voice out the torure and unable to console fellow family members who are going through the emotional torment? In my opinion, if i was in that situation, i honestly rather die. I know everyone wouldn't think the same way, but at least i have that option, for those who do want it.
I think the line between active and passive euthanasia has been blurred at this point, so let me clarify the distinction again.
What Viha is talking about is PASSIVE euthanasia, whereby you sign this form that says that "if my lung collapses and I cannot breath, you do not use your machines and bring me to life". This is the form of euthanasia that is constantly being violated by House in House M.D.
Active Euthanasia is probably what Gerlynn and Jolene are talking about. This is where a terminally ill patient who is suffering immense bouts of pain asks to be put to death by their physician.
In Terri Schiavo's case, she did not sign a AMD and had no specifications of what should be done if she ever wound up in a coma. So then, was the state of Florida right to take away her life-support mechanism?
What done to her blurs the line between active and passive euthanasia. Passive, because without the feeding tube, she was unable to sustain herself, thus qualifying her for the definition of passive euthanasia.
However, her case also hovered close to active euthanasia, because her doctor had to take action to end her life to be put out of her comatose state.
Putting aside her parents, who somehow managed to commune with her regardless of her being brain dead, and her husband, who somehow knew she wanted to die, and all that remains is the shell of a person.
The medics held on for 15 years waiting for her to wake up until was she declared not only comatosed, but braindead. In such an instance, we don't even have a person to wait for to wake up, because it's impossble for it to happen anyways.
Yes, her life may have been taken away by the state, but she lost the essence of her being once she was declared braindead. In such a case, perhaps it was wiser to let her go and channel those resources to saving lives who's lives could still be saved, rather than hanging on to the shell of a person which was already determined impossible to awaken again.
Like what Viha says, resources are scarce. Like what we learnt in Econs, everything has an opportunity cost and it was between the shell of a person who would not wake up ever again, or of another patient who may have a shot at life from the resources used to keep Terri alive. That is the opportunity cost.
I believe that passive euthanasia should be allowed. it is not only relieving the family's burden but also liberates the patient from torment. I would like to add that it is only ethical if the patient agrees to it.
The doctor involved in that process is seen as a murderer to some but in other's opinion, such as mine, i would see them as liberators.
People accuse patients who agree to the euthansia for commiting suicide. But i call the accusers tormentors. The dying patient is suffering from a interminable diesease that spells eminent death, they are suffering and clinging on to their miserable lifes in agony, why can't they choose to end their lives with swift and subtle means?
If related parties agree, then euthansia can be allowed
i seriously agree tat euthanasia shld be legalised. Why waste the time and money tryin to cure a INCURABLE disease? like Aids. Ya i know it is true they can live longer wif all the regular screenins and medications given, but afterall he/she will die, and all the sufferings accumulated could be worst than death.
Cant we jus end his/her misery in such painless manner? Provided he/she or related parties had given their consent.
Passive euthanasia basically means a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). It means that you leave an instrustion with your physician beforehand saying that if you go into cardiac arrest or something, you just want to die and that they shouldn't save you. Active Euthanasia on the other hand involves doctors actually taking steps to end the patients' lives.
PLS REMEMBER that this is the difference between passive and active euthanasia. We have sidetracked without realising the true difference between the two. I think we have come to a consensus that active euthanasia is cruel. But...... passive euthanasia on the other hand is the debatable issue here and i say that it's ok.
Passive Euthanasia is, like i've mentioned in my earlier posts, a freedom of choice. It is the individual right of the patient to choose if they want to sign a "DNR form". however, they shouldn't be thrown into jail for wanting to not go through alot of pain. IT IS THEIR OWN CHOICE.
I think that allowing euthanasia on the patient just because he/she is a burden to the family, a burden to the society, a wastage of medical resources is not right.
I believe that euthanasia should only be legalised if the patient and family members agreed to it because they want to relieve the pain and sufferings of the patient. Therefore, there should be stricter terms and conditions for the legal use of euthanasia.
I feel that if euthanasia is allowed, it should allow the patient to die in the shortest time possible to reduce the torture. If it takes place over a few days, it would be more cruel for the person.
I just disagree with allowing passive euthanasia or active euthanasia.
Active euthanasia is inhumane and take aways the freedom of choice from the patients. The patients are not being treated fairly like how they should be.
But passive euthanasia should not be legalised because it is unfair to the family members. Yes, the patients are of a burden to the family but why not bravely face death in the face and die when their time is up rather than giving up a slim chance of survival.
I disagree about what Stella had said about "passive euthanasia should not be legalised because it is unfair to the family members. Yes, the patients are of a burden to the family but why not bravely face death in the face and die when their time is up rather than giving up a slim chance of survival".
I think that passive euthanasia is perfectly fair for both the patient and the family members if they are the ones who gave their consent. I do not think that by accepting euthanasia, the patient is not facing death bravely. They are just going for the option of dying earlier so that the patient can end his/her sufferings.
Regarding the point about giving up a slim chance of survival, it really depends on how slim the chance is. Therefore, euthanasia should be looked into on a case to case basis. If the chance of survival is under a certain percentage, then could euthanasia be allowed.
I strongly believe that euthanasia should be legalised.
Either way, both put an end to the misery and pain the patient is suffering from.
Besides, if the patient agreed beforehand, I believe we should respect their decision- who else feel the suffering more then themselves?
i think Jenn has made a good point.
Besides, if the patient agreed beforehand, I believe we should respect their decision- who else feel the suffering more then themselves?
Yes, passive euthanasia should be legalised because the patient does have a right over his own life. However i feel that passive euthanasia should only be used on patients who, as jenn said, have agreed beforehand.
this will help relief the patient's pain and possible burden on the family.
Passive Euthanasia is already a norm, as proved by the AMD of S'pore. One of the roles of law is to reflect the mood of society, so since passive euthanasia is already a norm, why not take it in its natural step and legalise it?
Active euthanasia, on the other hand, is a more debatable issue, kind of out of the scope of this debate,but my two cents is that it shouldn't be legalised because allowing another person to have the right to bring upon death to a patient is wrong in principle and a model that allows one to do so is too easily open to abuse.
Post a Comment